Jane Kennedy: May I say on behalf of those who come to Prayers that it is a little disconcerting to have the blinds run up and down during them, particularly as we need all the help we can get these days and Prayers are quite important?
	At the end of last year, in response to concerns expressed by the industry about shortages of seasonal labour, the Government announced a 5,000 increase in the seasonal agricultural workers scheme quota for 2009. I am pleased that we were also recently able to address swiftly some practical problems that could have arisen with the availability of sheep shearers. I am grateful for the assistance of my Home Office colleagues, and the hon. Gentleman will know that we meet representatives of farmers regularly on all sorts of subjects.

Jane Kennedy: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the matter. We are being advised that there is more confidence among farmers and growers this year that they will have sufficient labour for seasonal fruit and vegetable harvesting, largely due to the economic climate within which they are operating. However, I can assure him that we keep the situation under close review. Indeed, all being well, my noble Friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath will meet my hon. Friend the Minister for Borders and Immigration in the week after the recess.

Hilary Benn: I do not agree that there has been no reform of the CAP. If the hon. Gentleman cares to go back 30 years or so, 80-plus per cent. of the EU budget went on the CAP, and it is currently about 41 or 42 per cent. That has happened only because of the process of reform, for which successive British Governments have pressed very strongly. As he will be only too well aware, the process of change requires agreement across a range of member states, not all of which share our views about the need to press for further reform.

Nicholas Winterton: My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) mentioned the particular figure for our contribution to the European agricultural policy. I will mention a bigger figure. In the past 10 years, we have contributed more than £120 billion to the European Union. Following the question from the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), is not it time that the common agricultural policy and the UK Government's endeavours were directed more at helping United Kingdom farmers, rather than allowing a still substantial sum of money to go to relatively inefficient farmers in other countries in the European Union, not least France?

Hilary Benn: We put a substantial amount of money into the British agricultural industry through the common agricultural policy. One of the changes that we have made is to shift the balance from production support to supporting farmers for environmentally sustainable farming. The success of agri-environment schemes in the past 21 years, partly in fixing some of the damage that the common agricultural policy at its height created, not least grubbing up hedgerows, is a step in the right direction. In future, we will have to balance the need to grow much more food with the need to do in a much more environmentally sustainable way because, in the end, soil and water are the raw materials on which food production depends.

Hilary Benn: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about very small payments. As he knows, we are currently consulting on how we might change the system in the light of the CAP health check to make some changes that make it easier for farmers—for example, giving farmers in future the right to decide when they go on to waterlogged soil as opposed to Secretary of State's having to sign a bit of paper to say that they can do it. Farmers know best how to deal with their soil.
	On minimum payments, the consultation is asking what should be the hectarage threshold. I encourage everyone who has a view to respond because very small payments clearly add to the Rural Payments Agency's work load, and it is right that we support that body. I will be able to tell the House later about progress in getting this year's payments out.

Nick Herbert: What confidence can we have in the Government's ability to fight Britain's corner on CAP reform? Why did not Britain fight harder against the absurd and costly proposals for electronic sheep tagging? The Secretary of State left it to Hungary to put the issue on the agenda at a recent Agriculture Council. He says that the current labelling rules on food are nonsense and need to change, but he will not introduce a compulsory scheme to stop British consumers being misled and our farmers being let down. When will the Government stand up for Britain's interests in Europe?

Nick Herbert: Frankly, Britain's farmers will be dismayed that the Secretary of State thinks that he got a good deal for them on sheep tagging. The proposal is absurd, costly and unnecessary. He said earlier that the CAP health check was a useful step forward, but at the time he said that it was a missed opportunity. He certainly missed an opportunity by failing to send a Minister to a crucial summit when the proposals were first discussed. French and German Ministers were there, but not ours. He complains about the pesticides directive now, but when it was voted through Britain abstained. Ministerial hand wringing does nothing to help British farmers. If he cannot do better to defend British interests, is not it time to stand aside and make way for a Government who will?

Jane Kennedy: The permanent housing of cattle is an emerging farming system in the UK. We are funding a three-year research project with the Scottish Agricultural College to investigate the management and welfare of continuously housed dairy cows. The study will include a comparison of the health of cows in continuously housed systems with those in summer grazing systems.

Jane Kennedy: I agree that the dairy sector is going through intense pressure at the moment. I also agree with the hon. Gentleman's general comments about the concern that exists about the welfare of cattle in those systems, but I do not accept that the zero-grazing of cattle is inherently cruel or unacceptable. It is important to recognise that poor standards of animal health and welfare can exist in intensive farming and less intensive systems. The most significant influence on the health and welfare of livestock is the skills and experience of the stock keeper and the support that that individual gets, as I have seen for myself on a number of farms where livestock has been farmed extensively and intensively.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I am pleased to report progress to the hon. Gentleman and to the House on this matter. We have commissioned a study by Entec on how public authorities have responded to the biodiversity duty since it came into force. It will comprise a large-scale study of public bodies this summer, followed by interviews with a smaller sample of bodies, and views from other stakeholders. We expect it to report in November.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I will not respond directly to the cuckoo question, but I will look at this issue and will happily discuss it with him further. The review will provide useful information and evidence to help us understand how the duty is being implemented and how to inform further action. Having that report in November will allow us to give a proper response. The review will allow us not only to see what is happening, but to raise the profile of the importance of implementing action on biodiversity across the UK.

Anne McIntosh: Will not the Government miss nine out of their 10 biodiversity targets to be achieved by next year? The Secretary of State has just said that the UK should not sign up to commitments from Europe before we know what impact that would have on the United Kingdom. Rather than reset these targets, as the Government have said in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert), would not it be better to admit that the targets were misplaced in the first place?

Huw Irranca-Davies: No, no, no. I know that the hon. Lady has genuine concerns about this, but the wide variety of stakeholders engaged in this issue recognise that the targets we set were ambitious, possibly beyond our reach. As we head to 2010 and look at resetting them, it is important that they are not only stretching and ambitious, but realistic and achievable. It is right that we have driven towards achieving those targets and that the UK leads the way in tackling biodiversity issues. Rather than having entire gloom, we should not forget that 88 per cent. of our sites of special scientific interest are now in favourable or improving condition, compared with 57 per cent. in 2003, and that our UK biodiversity action plan is driving the way forward.

Richard Ottaway: Will the deputy chief Whip just shut up? This is the luxury of a half-empty House.
	An illustration of the good use of common land is to be found uniquely in Croydon, where, under 19th century legislation, the Corporation of London took over the ownership and management of common land. I hasten to emphasise that I have no complaint about that arrangement, but its defect is that accountability for the running of the land lies with the council, while the users have no recourse to the ballot box if a problem arises, as it has in the past. When the Minister looks into the effectiveness of the 2006 Act, will he take that fact into account and try to assess how that democratic defect can be addressed?

Hilary Benn: The right hon. Gentleman's point about the emergence of the disease in other animals might be partly explained by the fact that bovine TB was made a notifiable disease only in 2006; we do not know the full extent of its incidence previously, so one would expect more reporting in view of that change. Secondly, it remains the case—despite best efforts—that there is no reliable in-field test, which answers the right hon. Gentleman's question about badgers with TB. Clearly, however, one thing that will have to be looked at in developing the deployment project is how to deal with the problem he raised, which he has discussed with me previously. Identifying in the field a badger with TB, as opposed to one without it, is not quite so easy as some argue.

Anthony Steen: In spite of the wholly unjustifiable attack on me by  The Daily Telegraph that has resulted in me standing down at the next election, I want to reassure the House that I will continue to fight against the evils of human trafficking as long as I am here.
	Is the Solicitor-General aware of the sentences given recently to two traffickers in Devon convicted of trafficking a 19-year-old girl from the Czech Republic? The judge gave one of them one year for running a brothel, and the other a year for trafficking and a year for running a brothel, even though the brothel had been running the trade with the Czech Republic for many years and in spite of the fact that the maximum sentence for trafficking is 14 years. Will the Solicitor-General therefore increase the training offered to judges—including Crown Court judges—as many have little experience of human trafficking cases or of the horrors of human trafficking for the young people concerned? The effect on victims is devastating, so can she ensure that traffickers are punished appropriately? One year is not enough.

Peter Bone: I too should like to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) for the way in which he chairs the all-party group on human trafficking and for keeping the matter at the forefront. I also pay tribute to the Solicitor-General for what she has done, but does she agree that many in the CPS think that the law on human trafficking is so badly drafted that it is extremely difficult to get prosecutions? Would it be worth revisiting that law to see whether it could be better drafted?

Mary Creagh: If she will make an estimate of the potential effect on the Law Officers' Department's budgets of implementing the proposals of the Cohabitation Bill  [Lords].

Alan Duncan: May I thank the right hon. and learned Lady for giving us the business for the week after next and thereafter? May I also say that the House will be pleased that the Home Secretary is to make a statement on the Government's decision on the Gurkhas? Many will wait with serious interest to hear what she will say shortly.
	I think that all Members recognise that the events of the past few weeks have profoundly shaken the House. The outpouring of fury that we have witnessed has been almost like a spring revolution, but I believe it is a hope shared by all of us that it will make us think deeply about how this place works and provide us with the opportunity to begin a new chapter for Parliament. Does the right hon. and learned Lady agree that even if we succeed in sorting out some of our immediate problems, there is a much deeper malaise in our system of politics that needs to be addressed, and we need to discuss that in the House. The truth is that the House has been sidelined for years; it struggles to keep pace with the speed of events; in its primary duty of scrutinising the Executive, it often fails; law is rammed on to the statute book through a vexatious use of timetabling; and too few people, both inside and outside, have faith in, or even understand, its processes. With the public clamour for reform now at its loudest for years, will the right hon. and learned Lady agree to an extensive series of debates so that some of the most serious and thorough arguments can be aired inside the House, not just outside it?
	My understanding of the outcome of meetings held recently to discuss the policing of the vicinity of Parliament is that what is required to cut through the legal muddle that governs this is a short Bill that will abolish bits of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 and then submit Parliament square and the vicinity once again to the power of a perhaps amended public order Act. Will the right hon. and learned Lady make a statement urgently on her plans to take action and tell the House when and how she might introduce the necessary legislation to solve this continuing problem?
	Will the right hon. and learned Lady reflect on the timing of the defence debate, which at the moment is scheduled for 4 June, which is the day of the local and European elections? Surely it cannot be right that on the day that the nation's attention is directed to the polling booth, the House is expected to debate all the serious challenges that face us, from conflict in Afghanistan to piracy off Somalia. Does she not agree that it is unacceptable to downgrade defence matters in this way? May I respectfully ask her to consider whether she can reschedule that debate?
	May we also have a statement on what appears to be the mismatch between the Government's claims and the actual facts surrounding the potential purchase of Eurofighter Typhoon jets for the RAF? That was spun by the Prime Minister as a done deal for the United Kingdom, but it has since become clear that not only is there no firm commitment for a third batch of the aircraft, but there are also huge question marks over the ensuing support costs. I have raised before the unwillingness of Ministers to provide the House with a statement on the Government's delay of the carrier programme, and once again it does rather seem that the Secretary of State for Defence is declining to come to the House to face serious questions on a procurement issue of such vital strategic significance. May we now be assured that he will do so?
	On the subject of procurement, may we have a debate or a statement on the Government's guidance on procurement decisions and policy for the 2012 Olympics? One of the benefits of having the Olympics in London is that large contracts are up for grabs that many businesses can rightly try to take advantage of. We appreciate that there are European tendering rules, but is the right hon. and learned Lady aware that some small British firms have been prevented even from bidding for contracts following the constricted tendering criteria established by the Government? Does she not agree that it is unfortunate that, in the middle of the worst recession that this country has seen for decades, some small and medium-sized enterprises feel excluded from what should be a significant and merited commercial opportunity?
	May I take this opportunity to offer you, Mr. Speaker, the right hon. and learned Lady and the House a happy—I should say happier—Whitsun recess. Perhaps we need to remember—the Deputy Leader of the House is an expert on these matters—that we are meant to be celebrating the descent of the Holy Spirit in the form of tongues of fire and inspiration. We are all in need of a bit of inspiration at the moment, and perhaps as a result we can all once again harness those flames to become apostles for a better working democracy.

Harriet Harman: I thank the shadow Leader of the House for his comments. He referred to the statement on the Gurkhas, and although people may say that Parliament has no power, the Gurkhas debate and the vote of the House to which the Government are responding, is a significant example of the will of the House impressing itself on the Government.
	Bearing in mind that there is a big debate in the country, the hon. Gentleman rightly asked when the House will have an opportunity to play its part in the important debate about how we rethink the relationship between Parliament and the people. Following on from all the action that has been taken and looking to the future, we will find opportunities for the House to debate those wider issues. But I would not want him or anyone else to lose sight of the important changes that have already been made. Looking back over the past 10 years, the people of Scotland have been given the right to choose whether they have their own Parliament and the right to elect their Parliament. The people of London have been given the right to have a mayor that they elect themselves.
	People have been given the right to more information through the Freedom of Information Act 2000, and their rights have been given more protection through the Human Rights Act 1998. In the House, debates and questions are more up to date, because we have topical debates and topical questions. We should see the current situation as an opportunity to build on the progress that we have made; I do not think that we should say, "The whole system has not been improving and therefore we need to start afresh." We should rebuild the trust and confidence in Parliament that has been battered by the issue of allowances, and take it as an opportunity to make further progress. Parliament, as a whole, will need to be at the centre of those debates, and I shall ensure that we make that time available.
	The hon. Gentleman talked about the policing of Parliament square, and he will know that, last week, Mr. Speaker convened a meeting of all responsible authorities. The Government stand ready to take any action that arises from the meeting not only to assist the right to demonstrate but to enable freedom of movement in the square for tourists, passers-by and, indeed, parliamentarians.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about a number of defence issues, Eurofighter being among them. We have Defence questions on the Monday that we return from the recess, we had a defence procurement debate recently and, as he pointed out, there will be a defence debate during the week that we return. The day in question is a sitting day, and it is always difficult when the House is sitting and the nation is voting in elections to a body other than Parliament. The forthcoming elections are important, so we did not seek to put on whipped business. That was not done with any disrespect to the important issues of defence, and there will be future opportunities to debate defence, which we know is always an important consideration for the House.
	On the question of the Olympics, I shall refer the hon. Gentleman's points to the Minister for the Olympics. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that capital investment from the public sector provides important commercial opportunities, and that is why we believe that Conservative party proposals to cut public capital investment would create problems because there would be a great deal fewer commercial opportunities all round.

David Heath: May I also welcome in anticipation the Home Secretary's statement on the Gurkhas? I hope that it will say what we all hope it will say: that the Government accept the will of the House. I look forward to a similar statement eventually on Equitable Life, so that we also repay that debt of honour.
	I am glad that the hon. Member for Basildon (Angela E. Smith) raised economic issues in her constituency, because while we concentrate on what we are doing in this House we must not forget that there is an awful recession going on out there. People are losing their jobs, houses and livelihoods; we must make space for deliberations on that important issue.
	Given the difficulties that we have all had in recent weeks, may I express my thanks to all the staff, families and spouses of Members of Parliament? They are getting criticism that is often entirely unjustified in respect of the MP with whom they are associated, and they are having to deal with abusive letters and phone calls. They have no part in what Members of this House have done, and we owe them a debt of thanks.

David Heath: That is absolutely right; I thought that I had made that plain.
	I echo what the shadow Leader of the House said about the opportunity that we now have to do something of greater importance for the House; I hope that we will set aside time to do it in the next few weeks. We have a light legislative programme. We have the opportunity to debate what the right hon. and learned Lady herself said yesterday was set to change and strengthen our democracy. That means that we need to look at how we do things in the House. For example, 99 clauses of the Policing and Crime Bill were never debated. That is not the way to scrutinise legislation. We must find ways to use our time effectively and rebalance the relationship between the House and the Executive. We must find time to debate the changing of our constitutional arrangements, because there is unfinished business. The right hon. and learned Lady says that things have been done, and that is true. However, there is the unfinished business of House of Lords reform, party funding and the size of both Houses. We need to debate those issues.
	Lastly, we need time to change our democratic processes, reinforce accountability and make the House more representative of the people whom we serve. If we use our time in that way, the country will realise that the House still has a relevance and a determination to change for the better.

Siobhain McDonagh: Today's edition of  The Times reports that despite the desperate conditions in Sri Lanka, the last remaining independent organisation, the International Committee of the Red Cross, is leaving the country because it cannot get access to the refugee camps. About 300,000 civilians are injured, maimed and starving, and their Government are not allowing in international aid to help them. Appealing to my right hon. and learned Friend in terms of the issues on which she has concentrated in her political life, it is reported today that 25 per cent. of young mothers and those expecting children are seriously malnourished. Does she agree that we desperately need a debate in the House on that matter?

David Anderson: Yesterday a petition signed by 22,500 people was taken to No. 10 Downing street asking the Department of Health and the Government to set up a national centre for asbestos-related diseases. Can we have a debate in this House about how we can improve the care given to people suffering from asbestos-related diseases, particularly those who have been criminally and negligently exposed to asbestos at work?

Andrew MacKay: As the situation in Zimbabwe is still grave despite the power-sharing Government, and as there will be some very tricky, delicate decisions to be made on when is the appropriate time to increase aid, does the Leader of the House think that it would be a good idea for the Secretary of State for International Development to come and make a statement when we return after the recess?

Jacqui Smith: With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on new settlement rights for former Gurkhas and their families.
	As the House knows, all Gurkhas who retired after July 1997, when the Brigade was relocated to the UK from Hong Kong, are already eligible to settle here under current immigration rules. Since 2004, more than 6,000 Gurkhas and their families have done so.
	On 29th April, hon. Members of all parties made clear their view that the Government should reconsider plans to increase by 10,000 the number of Gurkhas and family members who could come to the UK to live. As my hon. Friend the Minister for Borders and Immigration set out in his statement to the House that evening, we undertook to respect the will of the House and introduce revised proposals. I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for the work that he has led to deliver that commitment. I am also grateful to the members of the Home Affairs Committee and the Gurkhas' representatives, who have helped us to establish the basis for the proposals.
	Our policy will be put into effect through guidance, which we will publish shortly, having first shared it in advance with the Select Committee and Gurkha representatives to seek their views.
	Our new guidance will reflect the will of the House, while remaining affordable and consistent with our broader immigration policy. All former Gurkhas who retired before 1997 and who have served more than four years will now be eligible to apply for settlement in the UK.
	Gurkha representatives have indicated that it will take time for former Gurkhas and their families to make their applications. I welcome the willingness of the representatives to set up a form of resettlement board to assist the process of their integration into British life.
	On the basis of the figure of 10,000 to 15,000 main applicants that Gurkha representatives have suggested, I expect to be able to welcome them and their families over the course of the next two years. I am making resources available in the UK Border Agency to do that, and I am making it clear that there should be no time limit on those applications. The Select Committee has recommended that former Gurkhas should be entitled to bring with them their spouses and dependent children under the age of 18. I am pleased to accept that recommendation.
	The 1,400 or so outstanding applications for settlement that are now being considered by the UK Border Agency will be processed on the basis of the policy I am announcing today. I have instructed the UK Border Agency to process all those cases, as a matter of urgency, by 11 June, but I expect to complete the work earlier.
	The guidance recognises the unique nature of the service given to the UK by the Brigade of Gurkhas. It is offered to them on an exceptional basis.
	I hope that the House will understand the importance of maintaining the distinction, upheld by the High Court, between Gurkhas who served before and after 1997. That is why I welcome the agreement of all parties to our discussions that there is no direct read-across between settlement and pension rights. As the Chairman of the Select Committee wrote in his letter to the Prime Minister on Tuesday,
	"the question of equalising Gurkha pensions should not and need not be conflated with the debate about settlement".
	On the basis of the measures I have set out today, I am proud now to be able to offer this country's welcome to all who have served in the Brigade of Gurkhas and who wish to apply to settle here. I am sure that all who come here will make the most of the opportunities of living and working in the UK.
	I am delighted that we have now been able to agree—across Government, across the House and with the Gurkhas' representatives—new settlement rights, which all those who have served us so well so highly deserve. I commend the statement to the House.

Jacqui Smith: I certainly believe that, as my right hon. Friend has said, the work facilitated by the Home Affairs Committee on Tuesday, with the input of officials across Government, Gurkha representatives and members of the Committee has been very important in providing us with the basis for the proposals, on which it has been possible to move forward today confident that we can fulfil our duty to the Gurkhas in line with our responsibility to taxpayers and our broader immigration policy. I thank him for his leadership in bringing that forward.
	I am always slightly wary of accepting invitations to travel anywhere with my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West, great though he has been in this campaign.

John Horam: It is, and the hospital in question is a long way from the areas of greatest need in my constituency. People from that area need to take three different buses to get to the hospital, and that is unacceptable for people on limited means and who are not very well.
	The problem will be worsened by the expected reconfiguration, because the accident and emergency department at Queen Mary's hospital in Sidcup is likely to close, and that is the one that serves the Cray Valley, the area with the least good health in my constituency. I recently went to a meeting about health problems in the Cray Valley area, convened by Mr. Harold Barker, a well respected local resident, and there was clear concern expressed about this issue. I ask the Minister to ensure that when the reconfiguration occurs, proper consideration is given to the need for people in that area to have good access to other accident and emergency departments. If their nearest accident and emergency centre is closed down, they will have to travel much further. There are other aspects to health issues in the Cray Valley, and I noted that at the meeting the primary care trust gave an undertaking that it will report back to the neighbourhood group by July on what is happening. The area certainly needs extra health care provision.
	The third issue is cleanliness, and the situation is patchy. I get differing reports—some good, some very worrying—about attitudes to cleanliness in hospitals, some of which are reported to be casual, uninformed and poor. The hospital group does not have an especially good record on MRSA or clostridium difficile, and that is part of the problem.
	Fourthly, the medical side of the matter—whether people will be properly treated—is a fundamental issue, but I do not want to comment on that in this debate. We will have to look at that after the reconfiguration and after the trust has done what it thinks necessary to improve the situation.
	Finally, I want to say something about consultation with the local health community, by which I mean the relevant scrutiny committee of Bromley council, the Local Involvement Network—LINk—which is the public side of the trust's board meetings, and the dissemination of information to the public either directly or through the local press. The new huge trust has three LINks to deal with, so it is becoming a more complicated issue. Public involvement went badly wrong under the previous management of the trust. In particular, the consultation on the future of Orpington hospital was badly handled, as was the issue of the future of Global house. It is an administrative building owned by the PCT, but the Bromley Hospitals NHS Trust paid a fee for its administration staff to use it. The poor handling of those issues created suspicions among those interested in health matters locally, but that could have been avoided by more openness.
	In addition to the poor handling by old management, the new management have not got off to a good start in relation to statutory consultation. The LINk is a statutory body, and individuals who represent it have a right to be heard in the public section of board meetings. That did not appear to be properly understood at the recent board meeting of the trust. The LINk representatives were not treated with the respect that their position deserves. Not only that, but the board has failed to produce papers and agendas with sufficient time for them to be absorbed and understood by attendees. As we all know, the NHS is full of jargon and some of the papers are incomprehensible unless one has time to work them out. It is incumbent on management to give those who want to understand the time to work out what the reports say. In that respect, I draw the attention of the management to the NHS code of practice on openness and the code of conduct for NHS boards. I hope that the board will read, learn and inwardly digest—as we used to say at primary school—those documents, because I will hold it to account on its adherence to them. I hope that the Government will do the same.
	Leaving those issues aside, the management of the huge new trust are also new. They may have stumbled in their consultations to begin with, but they should be given a chance. It is important not to hark back to the past, but to look to the future and how we can improve patient care in Bromley and adjoining boroughs. It is also important to look at the results of health care, rather than the process. We can spend too much time worrying about whether processes have been adhered to: it is important that people are treated properly and get well soon.
	Last week I attended a seminar on NHS management. There is concern that, although many people want to become managers in the NHS, they are often put off by the stressful situation inherent in those jobs. NHS managers today have a plethora of targets compared with similar private sector jobs. They are subject to scrutiny by this House and other politicians. There is also often huge opposition to change—even necessary change—and that is not always responsibly conducted.
	The South London HealthCare NHS Trust has an opportunity to plot a new way forward for the benefit of my constituents. I hope that the Secretary of State will monitor the situation closely: it is imperative that he does so.

Graham Allen: MPs have deluded themselves that they have power. We swallowed the mythology of parliamentary sovereignty. Real power actually exists in Government, who control Parliament lock, stock and barrel, even down to setting the minutiae of Parliament's daily agenda. It is Government who are as responsible for Parliament's current position just as much as weak MPs. Instead of Parliament being a strong, independent partner, Government's steady attrition has made us a rubber stamp for decisions made in Whitehall. Our role, in the words of Gladstone, is
	"not to run the country but to hold to account those who do".
	That birthright has been sold for a little status and some chickenfeed allowances, and even they have been stripped away from us in recent days.
	So, where do we go from here? Amazingly, we have been given one last chance to rescue our self-respect as Members of Parliament. MPs can elect a new person to speak for us and for our Parliament. Rather than having the preferred candidate of the Government, or alternative Government, as has happened in the past, we can for the first time make our own choice in a secret ballot about who we want to be the Speaker of this House. That is the most important decision that any of us will make in our political careers and about the future of Parliament. There will be no one else to blame, no excuses and no anxiety about being seen voting by the Whips in the wrong Lobby. It is a secret ballot, a private decision of conscience for all Members of this House, a vital choice and a tremendous responsibility.
	It will also set a powerful precedent. The secret ballot is the enemy of undemocratic institutions abroad and at home. In this case, under threat is the tyranny of a leaden-footed and visionless system of government. The secret ballot is the longest established and most highly potent instrument that can be the salvation in the face of that tyranny and can lead us towards building a new Parliament under a new Speaker.
	The secret ballot should be used not only in this forthcoming election for the Speaker, but should be extended by this House for use in Parliament to liberate two pivotal areas. First, it can be the means by which Parliament can take back control of its own affairs and be wholly responsible for its own actions, independent of Government, rather than being the victim of someone else's decisions. MPs can take back control of our own agenda from Government by electing, in a secret ballot, our own Business Committee, so that Members of Parliament rather than the Government can agree the agenda. Of course, any sensible group of Members would seek to find time for appropriate Government business, but the responsibility would be ours. The selection of people on that Committee would be the responsibility of Members in all parties, and we would be taking back control of our destiny.
	Secondly, we can take back responsibility for holding Government to account if we elect, by secret ballots, all our Departmental Select Committees. MPs can choose to elect to those Committees colleagues who command the respect of their fellow MPs, rather than those who are responsible to the very Government whom we are meant to be holding to account. Those MPs—some new, and many who would be returned to the Committees of which they are already members—would do so with added legitimacy and independence, completely free from the taint of Government or party patronage. The secret ballot could deliver that incredible prize to this House, returning the ability to hold to account the Government of the day and those who wish to be the Governments of future days.

David Heath: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen). He expresses the not only the desperation felt by so many right hon. and hon. Members at the state of our Parliament and our parliamentary democracy but our dismay at the extent to which this House has been trodden through the mud in recent weeks. People like me, who consider that it is an enormous privilege and honour to be a Member of Parliament and to be able to stand in this place and say what we want to say on behalf of our constituents, feel that our position—our vocation, if one wishes to call it that, and I think that it is a vocation—has been sullied by the actions of a few and by the almost irreparable damage to our reputation. That cannot be right.
	We should be proud to be in this place and to do the job that we do. We are not entitled to the respect of our fellow citizens, but we need to be able to earn it. As I said earlier today, we can do that by dealing with the sordid issue of our expenses and the way that some Members—although not all—have chosen to interpret the rules. However, the issue goes much wider, because we also have to look at the whole system of democratic accountability.
	From what she said earlier, I think that the Leader of the House has got it, as I think has the shadow Leader of the House. There is a realisation among those who think about these matters that we cannot go on like this; equally, however, I know perfectly well that there is a ballast of Members who, sadly, do not share that interest. They will obstruct proper reforms of the sort set out by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North, and they will be bullied and coerced by the Whips.
	The Whips have no business in this area of our work. They can butt out of our election of a Speaker—it is not their issue. They need to understand that, because too often the influence of the Whips of all parties has got in the way of realistic reform. When Robin Cook was proposing his far-reaching reforms, he was defeated by a coalition of Whips. The then Leader of the House defeated by other elements in the Government—that cannot be the right way to deal with the problems that face us.

Bob Russell: Both my hon. Friend and I were leaders of local councils before we came to this place. Does he agree that, after 12 years of a new labour Government, local communities have less say over what goes on in their area than they did before 1997?

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman has heard me speak at length about the roads in my constituency, and I will not go through them all now; but let me mention one, which provides a clear example of lack of understanding. Until a little while ago the A303, which some Members know, was termed the second strategic route to the south-west. It is the alternative to the M4-M5 corridor. Somebody, somewhere, decided that it should no longer be the second strategic route to the south-west, so in the south-west regional spatial strategy it is downgraded to a "road of regional significance". It carries an enormous amount of traffic—not least the holidaymakers trying to make their way to the south-west peninsula each year—but because of that downgrading it will not get the improvements that it needs, which were promised over 12 years ago. It will not get the dualling that was required to make it effective and safe because somebody, somewhere—not the local council, not even the Secretary of State—has decided that, at a stroke of a pen, they can downgrade the main road to the west country. That is simply unacceptable.
	I have done my best for the road in recent years. I have repeatedly stated the need for these improvements, but my voice is not heard in this place by Ministers—by the people who take decisions—because there is somebody out there who is unaccountable, who says, "Oh no, Minister. I don't think we need to worry about this. This isn't a priority." Well, it is a priority; it is a priority for my constituents, and they expect people to hear what they say.
	I do not want to go any further on this subject. I simply say that we need a massive programme of reform—of democratic renewal. We really need a crusade that makes people understand that actually democracy is precious, and that we are in danger of losing our credentials as a democratic nation simply because people no longer have any confidence in the system. It starts in this place—getting this place right, getting it working. Then, it must apply to our wider constitution—making that more effective. It must then widen to empower the individual—it is a cant phrase, but a necessary phrase—so that they know that their voice is heard, that they have a mechanism by which they can articulate their hopes and fears, and that somebody will listen. At the moment they believe nobody is listening, and that is what is wrong with our democratic processes.

Bob Russell: I have just praised the hon. Member for North Essex. We are united in opposition to Essex county council's proposals to shut the two schools; we just have a difference of opinion on how we should go forward. There is a world of difference between praising a Member and criticising him.
	The majority on the council were in favour of what became known as option 4—the federation of the two schools with the Stanway school, under the executive headship of the inspirational Mr. Jonathan Tippett, who is already in overall charge of the three schools, and who has produced impressive outcomes since he took the helm of all three. A local solution for a local situation—something, one would have thought, that fitted the Tory agenda of so-called localism, of giving more powers to schools and heads, and of removing the dead hand of education authorities and officials. The reality, as demonstrated by the overbearing arrogance of county hall's leadership, is somewhat different. The county council's own consultation revealed that 96 per cent. of people opposed its proposals, but when the remote county Conservatives, only one of whom lives in my constituency, sought to justify what they were doing, they dismissed that. They said that that was not representative of the silent majority. That is the language of those who lead despotic regimes.
	The Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition knows that those who run Essex in the name of his party do his party an ill service, yet he has chosen to ignore it. As was reported in the  Colchester Gazette, he told the Colchester audience:
	"It has to be up to the county council and people in Colchester to decide."
	The people of Colchester have, at every opportunity, opposed the closure of the two schools; notably, its 60 borough councillors oppose it, too. The rhetoric of Cameron Direct is different to the reality of what his party in Essex is doing 30 miles away at County Hall.
	Until May last year, the proposal from Essex county council was to close both Thomas Lord Audley and Alderman Blaxill schools, and create an academy for the whole of south Colchester on the TLA site. County officials gave compelling reasons why that should happen, and successive education portfolio holders argued that it was the only way forward. The local community disagreed, and I pursued the matter at parliamentary level. The case against the county proposals was overwhelming.
	On 19 May 2008, as recorded by  Hansard in Children, Schools and Families questions, the Secretary of State said in response to a question that I tabled:
	"Essex county council has explained that its preferred approach is to build on the existing partnership with Stanway school and to pursue a trust. We will support the council in its decision, but only as long as there is genuine improvement in all three schools".—[ Official Report, 19 May 2008; Vol. 476, c. 3.]
	There has been genuine improvement: Thomas Lord Audley has achieved its best results in 50 years, exceeding the target of 30 per cent. GCSEs at grades A to C, and Alderman Blaxill has come out of special measures. On 20 May 2008, I had a meeting with the Minister for Schools and Learners, his officials and representatives from the Colchester community. The Minister sought confirmation from officials of how the Secretary of State's announcement could be taken forward. We were told that this could be done by the autumn, given good will all round.
	Sadly, that was not to be. Clearly angered by what had happened, Lord Hanningfield, in addition to being a shadow Minister in the other place and leader of Essex county council, took over the education portfolio insofar as it related to Colchester, and has personally driven an agenda to close not one but both schools. His costly vendetta will result in millions of pounds of public money being spent on new building projects, rather than money being invested in the existing buildings in the communities where the children live. Children will be bussed out of their communities, and there will be a reduction in parental choice.
	County officials, who only weeks earlier were arguing one thing with professional passion were told what Lord Hanningfield wanted. To their lasting shame, they have concocted a case, made up as they went along, to seek to justify closing both Thomas Lord Audley and Alderman Blaxill schools. I call on the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families to honour what he told the House on 19 May last year: he spoke in good faith, and what he said was clearly based on what his officials had been told by Essex county council. The Deputy Leader of the House will understand that that would be in accordance with Government policies on sustainable communities, safe routes to schools, and Every Child Matters. It would also be less costly to the public purse, and provide real value for money.
	The proposals to shut two schools in my constituency were not the only reason why the Conservatives did so badly at the ballot box in May last year; another was their general financial incompetence at the town hall. They put £12 million into Icelandic banks. The new administration, led by the Liberal Democrats supported by Labour and Independents, got that down to £4 million before the Icelandic banks crashed—thank goodness is was not the £12 million that the Tories had put there. Then there was the matter of the £6 million pay-off to a private housing maintenance firm, which the new administration inherited from the Conservatives.
	In the eyes of the public, however—and this is where national politics blends with local politics—the single most important issue of financial shambles which really angered the good people of Colchester was the folly of an unwanted art gallery that has been foisted on the town, even though people overwhelmingly did not want it. The original cost was put at £16 million. The gallery is now two years late, all work has stopped—again—and the cost has soared to £25 million. The visual arts facility, to give it its official name, has been funded primarily by the national taxpayer, with the largest sums coming from Arts Council England, East and the East of England Development Agency. Essex county council is a major player, too, with Lord Hanningfield personally driving the agenda from county hall. Colchester borough council's capital financial contribution is smaller, but at about £3.5 million, it is still a sum that Colchester residents would have preferred to spend on other things, such as upgrading the bus station, which was closed by the previous Tory council to provide a site for the visual arts facility.
	It has been revealed that, although there is sufficient land for the bus station to be repositioned, the previous Conservative borough and county administrations entered into an agreement to prevent that from happening. I have been told, however, that the details cannot be published because of commercial confidentiality. How can it be commercially confidential, if two local councils are involved? The estimated annual revenue subsidy that the new arts venue will require has been put at £600,000 from the public purse, of which £300,000 will come from council tax payers. A major feature of the VAF will be the display of contemporary Latin American art. It is worth observing that Arts Council England is planning to spend more money on contemporary Latin American art than it does on promoting England's traditional folk culture. Surely Arts Council England should put our national heritage before modern art from south America.
	The past two weeks have been the worst I have ever known for MPs—we have all been tarred with the same brush. Although it is clearly unfair, that is life, and we have to put up with it, right or wrong. What is not acceptable, however, is the abusive phone calls that Members' staff have received. My office has received only a couple of such phone calls—there have also been three abusive e-mails—but I am aware that for the staff of some MPs it has been a very nasty ordeal. I therefore wish to place on record my appreciation to all staff—not just the staff in my office—and register my regret that some people have been abusive to them.
	There are, of course, two Houses of Parliament. Yesterday, in the other place, two peers were suspended for serious misconduct. One of them, Lord Truscott, used to be a Labour councillor and organiser in Colchester. The regulations in the Commons have been found wanting, and have been exposed over the past fortnight. However, I suggest that the public want a complete overhaul of both Houses of Parliament, not just the Commons. For the financial year 2007-08, a total of £25,654 in overnight and day subsistence was claimed by Lord Hanningfield, which is more than the highest claim made by any MP. The official records show that Lord Hanningfield attended on 120 days out of the 164 for which the House of Lords sat, although he was present for only 29—

Lynne Featherstone: There are a few matters relating to my constituency that I wish to address. Before I do so, however, as a new Member who joined the House in 2005, I want to say how shocked I am by the way in which Parliament works, and how democracy is often thwarted here, rather than advanced. Perhaps I was simply naive before I came here and knew very little of politics so did not see the reality, but I hoped that my belief that the House was the seat of people who come here to stand up for things and fight for truth and justice was right. Like everyone else, I have been horrified by the revelations over the past few weeks, but if there is any silver lining, it is that it sometimes takes something of seismic proportions to shake the corridors of history in Parliament and to change things for the better. I hope that all hon. Members—and I was listening to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), who made a good contribution—will consider how the House must handle the future so that we can regain the trust and confidence of our constituents. I was very proud and privileged to become a Member of Parliament, and I hope to feel that way again very soon.
	With regard to the fair funding of schools in my constituency, if I say that per pupil Hackney receives £6,170, Camden £6,161, Islington £5,812 and Haringey £4,987, the House will realise that the children in my constituency receive more than £1,000 less, which is £32 million less per year. Because Hornsey and Wood Green has all the characteristics of those three inner-London boroughs, it has to pay its staff inner-London salary rates, which are much higher than the outer-London rates that it receives, and that is unfair. Children face being taught in larger classes and schools have difficulty in obtaining teachers and equipment, and that has a deleterious effect. I have raised this in Prime Minister's questions and he was kind enough to acknowledge that that was an anomaly, and I have met the Minister for Schools and Learners twice. A review is under way that will report in 2011, on which I have been refused a representative to make the case for Haringey, and I have received no assurance of any day of reckoning that will reckon in a way that I might wish to see it reckoned. Today I bring to the House another request that the children in Hornsey and Wood Green should not continue to receive £1,000 less per head than neighbouring boroughs when we face some of the worst poverty and deprivation in the country and when we have for so long received so much less than comparable boroughs.
	I have lost five sub-post offices in my constituency and since those closures the queues have grown horrendously. People have to wait up to 50 minutes and the average wait is 12 minutes, which is quite a long time given that it includes those occasions when there is no waiting time at all. I have been working with the Crown post office in Muswell Hill, which has put every effort into reducing its very long queues, and by adopting queue management techniques and other methods it has managed to reduce the waiting time to three minutes. Highgate used to have two sub-post offices, one at the top of the hill in Highgate village and one at the bottom by Highgate station. The one in Highgate village was closed, making it difficult for older people and parents with buggies to get to the other one. People who receive those little slips saying that the postman tried to deliver something while they were out, which is a great nuisance but it happens to all of us, have to go to the Highgate station office, which is always impossibly busy, and if they go at 12 noon on a Saturday when everyone who works during the week goes, the queues extend out into the street and are incredibly long. I am sorry—but not that sorry—to have to pillory that office in the Chamber, but it is a small, dirty, badly kept sub-post office where it is incredibly unpleasant for people to wait, and it is far too small to cope with the overspill that has resulted from the closure of the other office in Highgate village. There has been a devastating knock-on effect from the closures. I should like the Government to reconsider this and to re-open the Highgate village office, so that the elderly, home workers and mothers with buggies, who are all having a difficult time, do not have to queue for the length of time that they do currently. That goes for Alexandra post office too.
	I come now to one of the most serious issues that has arisen in my borough during the last year, and that is the tragedy of baby P, an issue on which I have spoken in the House a number of times, but I wish to raise it again. As the lead agency and the most to blame, Haringey council was rightly the first in line to get it most fiercely in the neck, and the consequences of that are well know through the media. There have been a number of sackings and a great revolution with the bringing in of a new director of children's services and new systems.
	In the last few weeks attention has been drawn to the health services, which I have sought to raise and put on the radar. I have always felt that the children's health services that led to the tragedy were a mirror image of what went on in Haringey council. In the last few weeks, the investigative journalist, Andrew Gilligan, from the  Evening Standard has exposed the failings within Haringey PCT and Great Ormond Street hospital. I have raised this matter in the House before, but it did not receive the same attention then that it did when it appeared in the  Evening Standard. Four paediatric consultants worked in the children's health services, which were commissioned by the PCT to Great Ormond Street, and I had often wondered why there was a locum. On inquiring, I found that since 2006, of the four consultant paediatricians, two had resigned, one was off sick and one was on special leave, so the locum, who so famously failed to recognise the broken back and ribs, was incredibly overworked. That is no excuse; obviously she was a dreadful doctor to miss such serious injuries. Nevertheless, that makes one think. What has been exposed in the past couple of weeks in the  Evening Standard includes the staffing shortages, which rather than being addressed have been denied by Great Ormond Street.
	Unfortunately, one of the results of the righteous indignation of the nation over Members' expenses is that those very important stories have not resulted in pressure being applied to the NHS management that I might have wished, but it is now carrying out a proper investigation into what was going on in health services.
	The spotlight passes from one agency to another and I am still pursuing a public inquiry because many issues have not yet received the full glare of public scrutiny. I have campaigned for the publication of serious case reviews. It is such secrecy that has kept events under the radar. When concerns are raised, whether by politicians, whistleblowers or whomever, ranks are closed and secrets are kept, and the only victims are the children whose problems are not resolved, while the defensive nature of such agencies is turned on the bringer of bad news. The baby P tragedy is the tip of the iceberg because of all the cases beneath the radar that never receive such publicity.
	We also need a public inquiry to look into what part the budget played. Ofsted has almost got away scot-free, yet it was Ofsted that gave Haringey a clean bill of health with a three-star rating while all this was going on. When the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families instructed it to go in again, it gave a one-star rating. Something is going on. Inspection agencies must be pure and above board and not be influenced in any way by the political situation or governance. There are issues around whistleblowing, secrecy, gagging orders, the budget and opposition politics. What should someone in a responsible position in a borough such as Haringey do if they cannot get any of the scrutiny processes to take on board an examination of child protection in the borough? Famously, Sharon Shoesmith told the overview and scrutiny committee, "My department is not in need of any scrutiny. I commend it to you." We know what happened shortly after that, so a mechanism that triggers an early intervention must be introduced to the political process, too. There is no use in being so defensive. The argument follows on from what the hon. Member for Nottingham, North said: we must get all our processes right. The issue is not just about the House or expenses; it is about how we do politics. So, I am still campaigning for a public inquiry.
	I shall briefly touch on another issue on which I have campaigned. Will Pike, a British citizen, was hideously injured as he tried to escape the Mumbai terrorist attacks. Terrorists were walking up and down the corridors in his hotel in Mumbai, looking for British and American citizens to kill. As far as the terrorists were concerned, it was a war. Mr. Pike escaped by climbing out of a window, but the sheets that he had tied together broke and he fell. He will be paralysed and in a wheelchair for the rest of his life. His father is a constituent of mine, and I am working with him.
	The expenses furore also hid a story in the news about the campaign to secure compensation in this country for British citizens who are injured in terrorist attacks abroad. If one is injured in this country by a terrorist attack, one is entitled to compensation, and our argument is that if it happens to someone somewhere else in the world, they are still our responsibility and we have a moral obligation to ensure that they come home and are looked after. I have asked for a meeting with the Prime Minister, but I have not had a reply yet. If I do not get one soon, I am going to contact Joanna Lumley to help me.  [ Laughter. ] Well, she seems to work the miracles!
	I shall briefly touch also on mental health issues in my constituency. St. Ann's hospital is our local mental health institution, and it has been consulting on closing one of its in-stay wards. We do not have the capacity to cope with the number of people who need admission to mental hospitals, and I met a series of service users who are absolutely desperate, because their loved ones need to go into hospital, but they cannot get in. When I brought all their considerations and problems to the attention of the management, I was told, "We're going to improve care in the community. We will put in the underpinning and enable them to live in their own homes, because, of course, it would be more preferable for them to live in their homes."
	However, such consultations ask people whether they agree with the principle, "Is it better if you can keep someone in their own home?" The same philosophy exists for older people. In principle, if the safety net were gold-plated and one could be sure that people would be looked after properly, having not just their medical health and mental health needs attended to, but their socialisation needs, one might be tempted to agree. However, the reality in Haringey and Hornsey and Wood Green falls far short of what people would need if such services were to exist, and I am scared that the process will go ahead regardless.
	The consultation has nothing to do with the real needs and desperate situations of those people and their families. I wanted to bring the issue to the Government's attention, because I am sure that Hornsey and Wood Green is not the only place in which mental health facilities are not adequate to cope with the great needs that people have. I want to get that point on the record, so that Barnet, Enfield and Haringey mental health trust sees what I have said about it, stops consulting, just listens and, I guess, does what I say.
	My speech is a whistle-stop tour, but my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) said that that was what one did in an Adjournment debate.

Lynne Featherstone: That is what he tells me, and I believe him.
	I shall turn to the middle east, because the heart of the Stop the War movement is in my constituency. It was born in Muswell Hill, and it is a very powerful movement. There is also a reasonably large—not huge, but sizeable—Jewish population in my constituency. I am constantly lobbied by pro-Palestinians and pro-Israelis to take their sides, but I have always held the view that there is only one solution: to move forward and go for a two-state solution. The blame for past events—who did what—gets us nowhere. If I have learned one thing from watching events in Northern Ireland, it is that the only way is forward. We can go as far back in history as we like, and one side or the other will have done something dreadful. However, both will have been at fault.
	I went to Israel and the west bank when I was shadow Secretary of State for International Development, and people want peace and need their leaders to lead them to peace. As a Liberal Democrat, I believe that there should be a regional solution; I do not see how we can solve it without having the key players at the table. However, the Government seem to go quiet when there is nothing immediate in the news. During the Gaza war, we were jumping up every day to discuss such matters, but now that the war is over, things have gone very quiet. I am sure that the Minister will assure me that things are going on all the time which are not reported, but I am anxious that not enough goes on when the issue leaves the media headlines. The blockades that prevent food and aid from entering Palestine are a humanitarian issue and should not be a political issue. I therefore simply call on the Government to move the agenda forward, not to go sotto voce, and to keep the issue at the top of the agenda. Only peace in the middle east will bring peace to the wider world, and then I would not have to stand here begging for compensation for constituents when they are victims of terrorist attacks abroad.
	Lastly but not leastly—

David Amess: Before the House adjourns for the Whitsun recess, I wish to raise a number of points. When I spoke in the Easter Adjournment debate, I said then that it would be the last Easter Adjournment debate before we had a general election, and, obviously, this will be our last Whitsun Adjournment debate before a general election. Much has happened since Easter, and we have only to look at the Chamber at the moment to see that all is not well with the House.
	Before my party leader called for an election, I felt that the paralysis that we in Parliament are suffering from was simply not tenable. I cannot conceive of how the House can limp along—with little or no business at all and Members, for whatever reason, feeling more and more disillusioned and stressed—until April next year. Without being political, I should say that the country needs to be governed and the House needs to address very serious issues at the moment. For all sorts of reasons, I doubt whether Members can concentrate their minds fully on those issues. That is why we need a fresh mandate. Furthermore, given Mr. Speaker's decision to stand down, it is right that a new Parliament, with some new Members, should elect a new Speaker.
	I want to say something about expenses. When I was first elected to the House in 1983, it sat for five days a week; we were always here on Fridays. The first Bill on which I sat in Committee was the Rates Bill. Members may be appalled or they may laugh, but one of our sittings lasted 48 hours. It is always fine to be wise in hindsight, but the time to change the arrangements on second homes was probably when the House changed the hours that we sit and how we work. In those early days, I represented Basildon, which was even nearer this place than Southend, West, but I could not get home to my constituency at 3, 4 or 5 o'clock in the morning. In hindsight, I wish that I and others had spoken up when we decided to change our working hours and that we had dealt with the issue then. It is a sorry state of affairs, and I cannot see how we can continue in this way until April next year.
	I apologise for having been late to the debate, Madam Deputy Speaker; I had given Mr. Speaker notice of that. I was at Westminster cathedral for the installation of the Most Reverend Vincent Gerard Nichols. I took the right decision in leaving halfway through, because the two-and-a-half-hour service does not end until 2.30. It was a privilege to be in a packed church. Throughout his nine years as cardinal, Cormac Murphy-O'Connor has done a splendid job given all the difficulties faced by any Church at the moment.
	Sometimes I am guilty of nodding off during a priest's sermon, but I listened carefully to the sermon given by the Most Reverend Vincent Gerard Nichols. His message was that we should listen to one another; I do not know whether that always happens in this place, but his message was to a wider audience. He also spoke about faith schools, an issue that the House has considered. Furthermore, he said that just because people have strong views on certain issues, they should not simply be derided as bigots. His message was strong.
	Recently, I made a small contribution to  The Tablet, in which I said:
	"We are seeing a decline in the number of people going to church and he"—
	that is, the new cardinal—
	"needs to address that and how the Church can be relevant in people's lives. The faith of society is also changing and bringing terrible problems which the Church can have a hand in solving. He needs to show the Government that the Catholic Church and Catholic education are resources worth tapping into, and that the Church can help with a lot of the problems that the Government is currently experiencing."
	I am sure that I speak for most fair-minded women and men in the House in wishing the new cardinal well with the challenges ahead.

David Amess: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, but I think that the Most Reverend Vincent Gerard Nichols will become the cardinal.  [Interruption.] I am chair of the all-party group on the Holy See, and I had a word with the Pope during my audience with him last year; I have it on good authority that the Most Reverend Vincent Gerard Nichols may become cardinal. Cormac Murphy-O'Connor is looking forward to a happy retirement. The Most Reverend Vincent Gerard Nichols is the 11th Archbishop of Westminster to be installed. The irony is that this is the first time ever that a cardinal has been given the opportunity to retire; all the rest died in office. We wish Cormac Murphy-O'Connor a long and happy retirement.
	Apart from expenses, the biggest issue in my constituency is that of the proposed expansion of Southend airport. In all my time here, I have never had as many individual, handwritten letters from constituents as I have on that issue. We all get petitions signed by Benjamin Disraeli and Queen Victoria, and people run off photocopies of petitions for us to sign. However, I am talking about individual, handwritten letters, not just e-mails. It is obvious that residents of Southend, West are very exercised by the airport issue. It would be helpful if the Deputy Leader of the House—perhaps not this afternoon, but in time—asked the appropriate Department to reflect on what I am going to say.
	The consultation period finished on 15 May, and as the local Member of Parliament, I felt that it would be wrong for me to give my opinion before that date on what should happen to Southend airport. I do not know whether any hon. Members have been to the airport, but when I first went to it, having arrived in Southend, I wondered how on earth an airport could be in the middle of such a heavily built up urban area with such narrow roads leading to it. For many years, the airport used to operate little flights to Jersey and Guernsey and aeroplanes would be repaired there; that was the bread-and-butter work.
	Never mind house building programmes, the Government have issued papers about the expansion and importance of regional airports, and that is how the whole process started. I think that I speak for all my constituents in saying that everyone wishes Southend airport well because of the jobs that it provides for local communities. However, when some years ago the then owner suggested that the airport should expand, there was meltdown. The then manager suggested that the beautiful 1,000-year-old church of St. Laurence be put on wheels and moved so many yards to allow the runway to expand and roads to be closed. English Heritage had something to say about that barking mad proposal, which caused huge upset in the constituency.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (James Duddridge) and I work closely together on Southend issues, but there is a huge divide about the airport issue. The reality is that the airport expansion will not affect Rochford and Southend, East. Any expansion of the facilities, particularly the runway, will impact only on Southend, West, and the aircraft will take off entirely over the area that I represent.
	The local authority has been under huge pressure. It has done the best that it can to consult and engage with the general public on this issue. However, I represent the highest number of centenarians in the country, and expecting senior citizens to e-mail replies and use that sort of technology is a complete non-starter. Having gone through the consultation document, I think that it raises more questions than it answers. We have not been given anywhere near enough detail about developments such as the new railway station, which will apparently bring people to the airport so that we do not have to worry about road expansions and closures. The proposal that the increased flights should take place from as early as 6.30 am until 11 o'clock at night is absolutely ludicrous. Unless I am missing the point, that means that my constituents will have complete freedom from any noise, pollution and all the rest of it only when they are asleep. That is complete madness.
	Of course, there are still many processes to go through, with the public inquiry and other such matters. Without boring the House any further, I would simply say that as the Member of Parliament for Southend, West, I will be representing the views of my constituents, as any Member would. At the moment, the overwhelming volume of responses that I have received in my office—I even have extra people dealing with those letters—are against the proposed expansion inasmuch as it was detailed in the consultation document.
	I am a trustee of the Industry and Parliament Trust, and I recently had the honour to lead a delegation to India—we went to Mumbai and to Chennai. It was a wonderful visit in every respect. In the previous year, we had been to China—to Shanghai—so Members of both Houses have had the opportunity to see at first hand the two new emerging economies and all the opportunities that can be provided for business women and men to engage with them. This country is very popular in India; the Indians are very keen for us to trade more goods and services with them. I have already had a meeting with the Foreign Secretary, thanks to the good offices of Baroness Coussins and Lord Janvrin, who are leading the detailed lobbying following our trip, and we have had a debate in Westminster Hall. Like my colleagues on the trip, I am determined to build on the many friendships that were formed during that period.
	The Indian election, with the unexpectedly solid victory of the Congress party, is a powerful mandate for an agenda of reform. We can expect greater privatisation in infrastructure development and education reforms, which will present new opportunities to British exporters and investors. The Prime Minister, Mr. Singh, has already stressed the importance of India's secular leadership over parties that had sought to stress divisions of religion, caste and language—an equitable development.
	The new Government will implement a range of reforms of great interest to Britain. They have introduced into the upper House an insurance Bill allowing more foreign direct investment in the sector. There is also a banking regulations amendment, which allows for greater private participation in the banking system, and the Pension Fund Regulatory and Development Authority Bill, which seeks to establish a regulator to push through reforms in the pensions sector. We should also be prepared for an easing of foreign ownership restrictions in the telecommunications and retail sectors, and have in place the right regulatory architecture to take advantage of those developments. Our consulates are doing a splendid job, as is the British Council, but we should be even more proactive than we are at the moment.
	I want to praise Southend council's measures against excessive indulgence in alcohol by young people. In Southend, we have a very strong record of preventive work in encouraging young people not to develop bad habits with regard to alcohol. That forms part and parcel of the healthy schools programme, which we deliver in partnership with the primary care trust. A high proportion of our schools have received healthy schools accreditation because of the strength of their work in that area.
	I know that other hon. Members have touched on this issue, but there seems to be a problem with the funding of our schools generally. We can talk about the formula ad nauseam, but a number of our schools are struggling with the funding formula at the moment. I was recently lobbied about it by our excellent adult college of further education, which helps people with learning difficulties.
	There is certainly a funding problem in education generally, but putting that aside, Southend council has been proactive in the initiative to deal with alcohol abuse and encourage young people not to go down a particular path. Ofsted inspections of schools in Southend comment that a very high proportion deliver outstanding work in encouraging children and young people to be healthy. The impact of that work is demonstrated in what young people tell us through the so-called "tell us survey", which indicates that 5 per cent. fewer young people in Southend misuse alcohol than is the case nationally. That is quite a large percentage.
	The full joint area review inspection of children's services in autumn 2007 said that a major strength was well received initiatives to prevent substance misuse. It stated:
	"Initiatives to prevent substance misuse across schools, the voluntary sector and post-16 learning are good."
	The 'Getting on with the Blues' project at Southend United football club—the club is starting work on its new stadium, which we hope will be available for various sporting activities during the Olympic games—is an initiative aimed at primary school age children. It being very well received and focuses on reducing alcohol misuse and antisocial behaviour, and more than 1,500 pupils have taken part in it. Evaluations of the project have found that most pupils, and all their teachers, rated it as excellent. The SOS bus and alcohol misuse outreach work have responded effectively to alcohol misuse by young people, and the alcohol misuse outreach worker has been effective in reducing reoffending and alcohol use by young people.
	Over the past 18 months, the work of our drugs and alcohol action team has strengthened further, and its work in supporting young people who need support and treatment because of alcohol abuse is now very effective. We also have further programmes to launch, so I hope that the Government are pleased with what Southend is doing in that respect.
	Two weeks ago, I had the privilege of being present at the launch of an initiative at Westborough primary school, where we have a wonderful headmistress called Mrs. Jenny Davies. It is the largest primary school in Essex, and there we launched the English schools induction service. The service was designed by Blade Education to educate children aged between four and 11 whose first language is not English about the customs and rules of the British schooling system, in their native language. It is a pioneering multilingual service that promotes social cohesion by welcoming children and their families into primary education in the language that they fully understand.
	The service provides 21 informative, accessible and, most importantly, child-friendly films that are available in a wide variety of language settings. The films help to integrate children who do not speak English as their first language into our schooling system, and they provide them with a realistic expectation of school life and help them to understand what will be expected of them as they go through their years in school. It will be used in every one of our 37 primary schools in Southend, and there are plans to launch an online version in September 2009 and to expand the service to secondary schools. A recent survey conducted by Blade Education noted that numerous educators had commented on the need for the English schools induction service to be instigated nationwide, and I wish to make that point to the Government.
	I have a few comments to make about the Independent Police Complaints Commission and the police force in general. I get any number of complaints about all sorts of issues involving the police. I have the highest regard for the IPCC, which is headed by Nick Hardwick. He is an outstanding civil servant, who does a splendid job. However, I have lost count of the matters with which I have tried to assist constituents. The journey through the IPCC can go on for one, two, three, four and five years. At the end of it, the IPPC's powers to gain anything, such as apologies, compensation or change in police force practice, are zilch.
	In Essex, there is a high turnover of police officers, especially at a senior level. That is not a particularly good thing. They all seem to retire early, for all manner of reasons. I have lost count of the letters that I have received from senior officers, introducing themselves to me and suggesting yet another meeting, and so it goes on. That shows the difficulty in conducting IPCC inquiries.
	I have the highest regard for the Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing. He said in a written answer to me that the IPCC is not responsible for imposing disciplinary sanctions on police forces or individuals. As we all know, Members of Parliament are currently in the limelight and we keep saying that no one is above the law. For that reason, we must address what is going on in our police forces.
	The evidence, findings and recommendations of IPCC investigations are apparently fed to the police performance and conduct systems as and when appropriate. What is the point of the IPCC if it cannot impose discipline on police officers who are found guilty of abusing their powers? When a police officer has a complaint upheld against him, he is offered "words of advice"—would not Members of Parliament like to be offered "words of advice"?—from a senior officer. What message does that convey? More important, what deterrent is that? Other statements such as "guidelines" and "recommendations" are worthless and meaningless, as is the expression, "Let's have a review."
	When constituents complain and their representations are upheld, what "words of advice" are given to police officers and police forces? Who monitors the police complaints? How do respective police forces implement IPCC judgments? Commissioners come and go; the personnel change all the time.
	I suspect that I was one of the few Members of Parliament who responded to the consultation process to try to give the IPCC more power so that, when people's complaints were successful, at least small amounts of compensation could be paid and public apologies could be made.
	The Public Accounts Committee, which my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) admirably chairs, has done a splendid job in investigating the IPCC. In its 15th report, which was published only in March, the Committee made some excellent recommendations, including that the Home Office should clarify who is responsible for monitoring the implementation of IPCC recommendations. I have been in constant correspondence with Ministers about it, and the replies are just not satisfactory. I should therefore be grateful to the Deputy Leader of the House if he could, in due course, please find out from the Home Office what progress is being made on introducing an appropriate system.
	I repeat that I have the greatest regard for Nick Hardwick and the Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing, who is responsible for the matter. I took the consultation seriously and made some suggestions, but when will genuine progress be made? There is no doubt that the whole system governing police complaints needs to be re-examined and reformed. I hope that the Public Accounts Committee report is acted on soon.
	The House has been indulgent, so I shall come to my last point, which is about fuel poverty. If we go outside this Chamber, we will see that it is a lovely early summer or late spring day. On days like today we forget about fuel poverty. We wait until November, and if there is a cold snap, we get hon. Members raising the issue. That is too late. Why did I and other hon. Members invest a year of our lives in 2000 to ensure that the then Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Bill became an Act? Why did we charge the Government with a duty to end fuel poverty, which we now know will not happen? Five million people are living in fuel poverty.
	I welcome the Government's recent initiatives to address fuel poverty, which include the community energy saving programme, enhancing funding for the carbon emissions reduction target and raising the maximum grant under the Warm Front scheme. Ofgem is finally to act on failings and unfairness in the competitive energy market, which acts to the detriment of disadvantaged consumers, although it is a serious indictment of the regulator that remedial action has been so long in coming.
	However, the result of raising the maximum Warm Front grant without increasing the scheme's budget is that fewer vulnerable households can be assisted. The Warm Front budget should be increased at least to maintain the number of households that can be assisted. We need a longer-term strategy to address fuel poverty through a national energy efficiency scheme to improve our entire housing stock. We need to introduce a social tariff combining consistent eligibility criteria and a degree of consumer benefit to provide certainty to vulnerable consumers and their advisers.

Chris Bryant: Well, I am trying to appreciate it, but I am not getting any closer, I am afraid. Perhaps we will have to have a discussion about that at some point, without delaying the rest of the House.
	I hope that I am not breaking any convention when I say that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath)—I got his constituency right, for the first time—told me, before coming into the Chamber, that he had only one word for his speech: disconnection. None the less, he managed to connect his thoughts, more or less. He said that the Commons had been trodden through the mud, and that there had been "almost irreparable damage to our reputation"; I think that those were his precise words.
	I do not think that anybody in this House is labouring under the illusion that there is not a significant need for reform, and I very much hope that all parties will be able to come together to ensure that that reform comes about. The democratic process, based on universal franchise, is something that people fought for through generations in this country, and something that we all uphold. Without the opportunity to change society through the democratic process, we have no means of changing it, and we cannot even hope for a fairer or better world. The hon. Gentleman called for a massive programme of democratic reform to empower the individual, and I think that he knows from many things that I have said, both at the Dispatch Box and as a Back Bencher, that I wholeheartedly agree with many of the measures for which he has campaigned.
	The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner), who often speaks in such debates, talked about the problem in his constituency in relation to Vestas, which has announced a 90-day consultation on the closure of its factory, with the loss of about 600 direct jobs. He will be only too aware of the fact that one of the problems for Vestas is that its market is not just a UK one. In fact, much of its plant supplies the American market, because the blades that it builds are the size mostly used in the USA, rather than in the UK.
	The Government are keen, especially in a recession and because we want to tackle climate change, to make sure that we provide proper support for renewable energy industries. That is why there has been £4 billion of new capital from the European Investment Bank for UK renewable energy projects, and £405 million to support low-carbon manufacturing, including wind projects in the UK. We are keen to do more. I will pass the hon. Gentleman's comments on to the responsible Ministers, so that if there is anything further that they can do, they have an opportunity to do so.
	Likewise, I will pass on the hon. Gentleman's concerns about the disposal of fallen stock. He pointed that there was now official derogation for burial, but he said that there were significant worries about whether the burial of farm animals was safe and sensible, and whether there would be problems for water conduits. He also raised a series of other issues that needed to be treated seriously, and I will pass those messages on.
	Finally, the hon. Gentleman referred to waiting lists, and the need constantly to bear down on them. Some people say that it is wrong to have targets in the health service, because somehow or other that interferes with medical considerations. When I was first elected, my own experience in south Wales was that many people who regularly came to see me were suffering from serious conditions, having been told that they would have to wait three, four or five years, particularly for orthopaedic operations. Those waiting lists do not exist any more in my area. Health is a devolved responsibility in Wales, so it is not the Government's particular responsibility, but I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman that if there is a long waiting list, that can exacerbate poor mental health, let alone poor physical health.
	The hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell), contrary to what the hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Mr. Vara) said, made a rather good speech. He spent quite a lot of time attacking the Conservative party, which is obviously a sane and sensible thing to do. I do not have an axe to grind in that particular enmity, as both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats lost their deposit in the Rhondda and indeed—well, I will not say any more about that. The hon. Gentleman talked rather a lot about the Members' bathroom, which he seems regularly to have shared with the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron). I do not want to go there, in more ways than one. He said that Colchester is the fasting growing area in Britain.

Council Tax Benefit

Paul Burstow: I rise to present a petition on behalf of the Royal British Legion and others. It reads as follows:
	The Petition of members of The Royal British Legion and others,
	Declares that some 25,000 signatures were added to a petition delivered to Number 10 Downing Street in support of Council Tax Benefit being rebranded as a rebate; further declares that over a third of veterans and their dependents over 65 live on an income below the minimum required for healthy living and that Council Tax bills are probably the largest household expense for this age group; notes that uptake amongst pensioners of Council Tax Benefit has dropped sharply since the abolition of the old domestic rates system's rebate and that £1.5bn of Council Tax Benefit is left unclaimed by pensioners each year; further notes that more than half of the ex-Service community think veterans would be more likely to claim Council Tax Benefit if it was known as a rebate.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to commit now to rebranding Council Tax Benefit as a rebate before the time of the next general election
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000367]